United States v. Eduardo Sosa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10214
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:15-cr-00313-RM-BGM-1
v.
EDUARDO SOSA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 12, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, ** District
Judge.
Eduardo Sosa challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that
Border Patrol Agents lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.
An officer may conduct an investigatory stop of a person or vehicle if he has
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity “may be afoot.” United
States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490
U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). To determine whether a stop was supported by reasonable
suspicion, we look at the totality of the circumstances. Id. In the context of border
patrol stops, the factors we consider include: “(1) characteristics of the area; (2)
proximity to the border; (3) usual patterns of traffic and time of day; (4) previous
alien or drug smuggling in the area; (5) behavior of the driver, including ‘obvious
attempts to evade officers’; (6) appearance or behavior of passengers; (7) model
and appearance of the vehicle; and, (8) officer experience.” United States v.
Garcia-Barron, 116 F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v.
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885 (1975)). In addition, “the notoriety of a road
as an alien smuggling route . . . [is] a relevant factor supporting reasonable
suspicion.” United States v. Palos-Marquez, 591 F.3d 1272, 1277 (9th Cir. 2010).
Here, the behavior of the men whom the car picked up, the location and
timing of the pickup, and the movement of the car, taken together, demonstrate that
the agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop.
AFFIRMED.
2